Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old Head coinage/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2022 [1].

Old Head coinage

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the last issue of coins of Queen Victoria, with the well-known portrait of her as an elderly woman. It received mixed to positive reviews at the time, which was an improvement from the previous Jubilee coinage anyway.Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Queen_Victoria_proof_double_sovereign_MET_DP100383_(cropped).jpg: where is that licensing coming from and what does it cover? Ditto File:The_Ashantee_Medal,_granted_by_the_Queen_for_the_Expedition_of_1873–74_MET_DP-180-162.jpg, File:Queen_Victoria's_Diamond_Jubilee,_1897_MET_DP-180-010.jpg
  • File:Victoria_1837-1901_coin_pic12.JPG is missing a tag for the original work. Ditto File:British_threepence_1899.jpg, File:Victoria_1837-1901_coin_pic19.JPG
  • File:1893_half_crown_obverse.jpeg: are the duplicate tags meant to cover the photo and the coin? If so, could that be clarified? If no, what's the status of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the 1893 half crowns, those things are done. It looks like OTRS messed things up and thought they were purely PD. I will resubmit them tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS has now acted. That's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "was immediately gilded to make it appear to be the more valuable coin". By whom?
  • "attributes suggests that". ?
  • "the committee recommended that the double florin not be further struck". Is it known why?
  • "using a different portraits". Delete "a".
  • Link mantle.

These fiddling suggestions are all I have. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit
  • "coins struck dated between 1893 and 1901" - the two participles together read a bit oddly. Should it be "struck and dated"?
  • "The crown, or five-shilling piece, was struck for circulation for the first time since the 1840s." - source?
  • "The committee was chaired by the Liberal MP" - link Liberal?
  • "The government agreed (minting of the double florin had been suspended in August 1890)." - three words plus a parenthical aside reads oddly - any chance this sentence could be combined with another one?
No, but I've opened the parens.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The competition had a deadline of 31 October 1891, and on 27 November, the committee met at the Bank of England to consider them" - doesn't work grammatically, you need something earlier in the sentence to which "them" can then refer back
  • "The sculptors had been directed to include on their designs, Victoria's name and titles" - that comma should not be there
  • "Victoria had been lobbying since 1888 for her title as empress of India, granted by the Royal Titles Act 1876 to be" - you need a comma after 1876 to close off the subordinate clause
  • "The motto [...] were added" - motto is singular
  • "with the pattern continuing through 1900" - the article is presumably written in British English, and we don't say "through [date]" in the UK
  • "they would be restored in 1937" - source?
  • The last paragraphs of the circulation section are all extremely short - suggest combining some or even all of them
The thing is, they are each different in subject matter and hard to combine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for as noted, all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

Three comments, none of which affect my support, but which you may like to consider:

  • "a portrait of an aged Queen Victoria wearing a diadem partially hidden by a widow's veil, designed by Thomas Brock" – although few, if any, will mistake your meaning, it might still be as well to make it crystal clear that Brock designed the portrait and not just the veil. Shifting "designed by T B" up to follow "portrait" would do the job.
  • "the chancellor of the Exchequer, George Goschen" – I'm blest if I can see why this dignitary is deprived of his capital C when lesser mortals such as the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, the Chairman of the National Provincial Bank and the President of the Royal Academy get the full ulc treatment. (Looking at our article on the C of the E, it seems that the form is to capitalise "Chancellor of the Exchequer" but not "the chancellor".)
  • "Deputy Governor … deputy master" – further in-and-out running in capitalisation. I won't go on about "prime minister", "empress of India" or "Star of the Garter" or we'll end up sticking straws in our hair.

The article is clear, the prose is good, the illustrations are impressive and the sources, old and new, are many and varied. I'm happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 06:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've made that slight change in the lead and capitalised where it seems appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Pass. I can't find anything to complain about. Not a source issue, but I did notice that Steer 'felt that the Queen's necklace, earring and orders gave the new obverse "a certain tawdry look"' and not knowing what was meant by "orders" I had a look through the article and was unable to find an explanation. Can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've piped to Order (distinction). Two of her orders Garter and Star of. India are mentioned as visible.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. I figured it had to be that, but couldn't imagine that the orders would be visible on the coin; the link makes it quite clear that's what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thinks for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Old_Head_coinage/archive1&oldid=1100049315"